Modification of the Clause in the Rules Concerning the Centres

Written:Written in February 1905Published:First published in 1926 inLenin Miscellany V.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 8,

      pages197-199.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Isidor LaskerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Agood many of the comrades working in Russia, including the Bureau of
Committees of the Majority, are going on record for asinglecentrein Russia.

Whatwould such a reform actually mean? The idea unmistakably implied in this
tendency is that comrades active in Russia should predominate in the one
centre. Its realisation depends entirely upon the will of the Congress, which
will elect the members of the centre. Consequently, there is nothing to discuss
or to talk about on this point.

But,to go further, what will be the relation of the Central Organ to the
Central Committee? The Central Organ, we are told, is to be a commission
appointed by the C.C. One (or two) members of the Editorial Board of the Central
Organ may (say these comrades) sit on the C.C. as part of it, aminorpart. There arises the question in what way this foreign section of the
C.C. will participate in its work. The idea that realparticipationin
the work of the C.C. can be achieved “by correspondence” is
obviously utopian and could not be suggested seriously. It is only with great
difficulty, at the cost of tremendous effort, trouble, quarrelling, and
vexation, that those working abroad can obtain the scantiest informationpost factum, so that one can only speak of “taking part in
deciding things” from abroad through sheer hypocrisy or in order to
“sound important”.

Andso, the choice must be made: either the C.C. members (or, correspondingly,
member) residing abroad secure provisionin the Party Rules(other
“agreements” being invalid) for theentireC.C. to meet
abroad periodically, inwhichcase this supreme centre will,in
actual fact, be identicalwith the present Party Council, i.e., it will become a body that meets three,
      four, or five times a year and gives onlygeneral directionto
    the work;or elsefor the C. C. to meet in Russia and settle all
    businessthere, withoutits component from abroad. In this case the
    latter is but nominally listed,avowedly fictitiously, as a member
    of the C.C.Actually, he can haveno sayin deciding
    general questions. Under such circumstances it is open to doubt whether any
    people will be found to fill this “post” (or shall we say
    sinecure?) of “members from abroad” on the C.C.!

Another(and the last possible) assumption: the C.C. to consistentirelyof comrades who work in Russia and to constitute a single
centre. Only such a central body willreallybe a single Russian
centre. For work abroad it establishes an agency.In actual practice,
however, this agency will exist as an independent centre. To take the case of
the editors of the Central Organ. Clearly we shall need afull Boardhere, that will onlyby a long drawn-out processtake shape, form a
team, and pull together. (It took the people in Russiaeighteen monthsof hard effort to build up anewCentral Organ after the Second
Congress, and that notwithstanding the in tense concern shown throughout Russia
for solving the gravegeneral Partycrisis.) In practice this Board
will issue theweeklyorgan independently.At bestthe C.C. in
Russia will show its interest in the way the publication is managed by calling a
“conference” once in six months (or once in eighteen
months)—in what way will such a “conference” differ from the
“Council”?—or by a “letter” from anindividualmember of the C.C. In practice this foreign Board will conduct agitation and
train functionaries abroad (lectures, meetings) amonghundredsof Party
members. The C.C. will bephysicallyunableactuallyto
direct this work,actuallyto manage this work of the foreign Board. It
will be physically unable toparticipatein this work, except throughrareconferences with the persons conducting it. Here again—in
what way will these conferences differ from the Council?

Tosum up: in actual fact, in practice, a “single” Centre will
either be amyth, or it will merely boil down, positively and
inevitably, to the present system of what is scornfully called “the Triple
Centre”. In actual fact, in practice, differences in geographic and
political conditions, as well asdifferences in the character of the work, inevitably and unavoidably
necessitate, and will continue to necessitate (until the fall of the autocracy),
two centres in our Party, united onlyfrom time to timeby“c o n f e r e n c e s”,

whichactuallywill always
play the role of supreme or highest “Council” of the Party.

Itis quite understandable that the reaction against the people abroad should
have evoked from those in Russia the general outcry: Down with the people
abroad! Down with two centres! This reaction is legitimate andlaudable;for it indicates the tremendous growth of the Party’s
strength and of Party consciousness since the Second Congress. This reaction is
undeniably a step forward by our Party. But we must not be misled by the
fascination of words; we must not elevate to a “system” themoodof the moment, the passing “resentment” against the
“fellows abroad”. No Party system can be built on anger. Nothing is
easier than to lay down the short and simple rule of “one
centre”. But such a decision would bring us no nearer to the solution of
the intricate problem of finding methods for uniting actually (not merely on
paper) the diverse functions of the work in Russia and abroad.